Thanks to everyone who responded to the spirituality survey!
After seeing the all the responses to the spirituality survey, this week, I've come to one definite conclusion: While folks are eager to define categories, they don't like being fit into them. I think this is because categories tend to be exclusive; if you belong in one group, you don't belong in another. Even overlapping categories seem to supersede one another; in the case of the spirituality quiz, the all-inclusive philosophical categories, such as Unitarian Universalism or Secular Humanism seemed less important than more specific belief systems.
There seems to be a relationship between the inclusiveness of a particular faith and the complexity of the religion. If you put "the golden rule" on the list as a faith, I'd guess that most of people would score a high percentage. On the other hand, if you take a rigorous monastic cult, a small percentage of the population would be comfortable with all of the rules involved. (Most likely, the only people who would be comfortable would be the founder of the faith, and others with very similar traits.)
People, in contrast to faiths, are always complex and specific. If you ask me, that is the true beauty found in people-uniqueness. So why do we all try to fit into the categories? (My guess is that we like to experiment, the ultimate form of adventure.) It seemed most people who took the quiz were looking for another category. Many non-theists were bothered by the fact that the quiz didn't make any distinction between agnostics and atheists.
But can "atheism" as a term adequately describe the ethical rules a person who doesn't believe in any higher power? Does it explain how an atheist finds personal fulfillment or enlightenment? Does it explain how they grieve over someone lost, how they find inspiration, or how they love? Does it explain how they raise their children? Now, go back and replace "atheism" with any fundamentalist faith, and the majority of people who follow it. Do they agree with their religion on every issue, every time? Perhaps some of them do, but I expect many parishioners make small compromises which they keep to themselves during the service.
Does anyone have the perfect all-inclusive category?
A number of years ago, I stopped going to my Lutheran church, when their collective beliefs clashed with mine. Before then, I'd been comfortable making compromises with the bible. I looked at it as a book of myths and metaphors for something we didn't quite understand, but could sense. My pastor at the time encouraged this viewpoint, as long as it led me further into theological research. When my congregation gave him the boot for being too open-minded, I left as well.
After that, I went looking for a church where I wouldn't need to compromise, or at the very least, could think for myself. I attended countless services of varying faiths, until finally; I found myself in a new-age church, with glass pyramids, crystals dangling from the ceiling, and a big shiny velvet picture of Jesus. I realized then and there, finding the one faith that fit my individual beliefs was simply impossible. The harder I tried, the weirder it got.
So, in the end, I decided to start my own religion for one. No, not some narcissistic self-worship, but worship of the cosmos as I saw fit. It all came down to a balance between order and chaos. Follow whatever rules seem fit, the ones that bring you success.... but be flexible, and be unique. Honestly, I think all religions could stand a little dose of chaos. It isn't just religion, though. I see all-too-specific categories in all complex systems--from K-12 education goals, to political campaigns, to the use of natural resources. Perhaps we just need a catchy slogan for an categorical reform movement: Got Chaos?
Photo by Alan.
- Log in to post comments
The end point categories weren't the real problem (well they would be if they mattered) to me from that survey - it was the groupings in the questions themselves. When there is no distinction made between an atheist and an agnostic then the whole thing is broken right from the start.
I hate to be a bummer, but I have to ask: is this really a science blog? As in: a blog about science? And if not, then should it be a part of scienceblogs? I like your blog and all, but I find myself wondering why it's part of scienceblogs.
Markk, I did find the questions to be rather broad and answer choices to be rather narrow, but I figured that's typical for web-based quizzes. My trouble with fitting people into categories goes beyond this quiz. I understand your feelings, though... I wasn't particularly fond of being lumped together with the Wiccans either. (The one question about reverence for nature seemed inadequate to me.)
grigory,
It's interesting to hear you ask this question now. I wondered if anyone would question it when I ran a long series on urban development in Colorado, months ago. Or, when I've posted various works of fiction. In those cases, rather than being questioned, my readers seemed to like them. Pre-ScienceBlogs, Chaotic Utopia always covered a diverse number of subjects, including, but not limited to several branches of science. In general, the subjects typically return to chaos and complexity theory, or similar subjects (ie, emergence, complex adaptive systems.) Were you suggesting that chaos and complexity theory do not belong in science? Or that I, being a student, am not yet qualified to discuss them?
Admittedly, I've been posting lightly over the past few weeks, but that has been more related to family stress and lack of time to do any serious writing than a lack of interest in science. I'm certainly not the first around here to write about religion, or theism vs. atheism--although I am the first to take the theist side. Is that what you object to? Still, if you have any doubts, feel free to contact the editors at Seed (who attempt to merge science and culture.) They invited me, so I assume they might have a better (and more succinct) answer to your question than I.
PS, thanks... I'm glad you like the blog.
"Were you suggesting that chaos and complexity theory do not belong in science? Or that I, being a student, am not yet qualified to discuss them?"
Not at all... I was just making note of the fact that almost every entry I've ever read on your blog has been about something other than science. It's not a criticism.
"I'm certainly not the first around here to write about religion, or theism vs. atheism--although I am the first to take the theist side."
True.
"--although I am the first to take the theist side. Is that what you object to?"
No. And...uh... I didn't actually object to anything.
"Still, if you have any doubts, feel free to contact the editors at Seed (who attempt to merge science and culture.) They invited me, so I assume they might have a better (and more succinct) answer to your question than I."
I think I'll pass!
Well, thanks for answering my question, which I think was a legitimate one. I get the feeling that you were annoyed by it ... please don't be. I just actually wanted to know if this was a "science blog" or not!
:)
I've been thinking about religious catagorisation a lot lately, and have had some serious problems working out how on earth you could actualy get a system that works.
There are just so many variables, some black and white, yes no questions, some grayscale. If you only include theistic beliefs, you still have a thousand qualifiers to include on the beliefs about the nature of whatever deity you wish to. If you factor in personal philosophy, it is anyones guess.
Someone who is theistic can argue as strongly as any atheist against an image of God that they don't personaly hold true. Further, an atheist may take the equivilant moral argument as a full theist when confronted by a situation where their ethical and philosophical views overlap. Theism tends to have only a relatively minor effect on these basic philosophies, so the overlap in this area tends to be absolutely huge.
These labels of atheist, agnostic, Christian, etc, are all next to worthless in that they tell you virtualy nothing about the actual person. They are worse than a classical left/right political viewpoint. That takes into account one aspect of a topic that can be boiled down to two or three major scales. Look at the Political Compass or a similar site and you can see how accurately you can manage political affiliation with just two scales. Try doing something along those lines with religious views and you will end up with about a dozen scales and still problems with some faiths not being correctly represented ("Sure we believe all that, but not in the same way as them").
grigory, I'll admit, you caught me at a bad time. And, I love science--I'd feel so empty without it. You're right, I've had a good number of non-science posts lately, and there will probably be a few more through the holidays (with the exception of some candy-making chemistry I've got planned.) It's partly because I took the semester off from school, and haven't been doing any serious research (or my other usual, writing short stories.) Early next year, that will certainly change. Thanks for reading, and I apologize if my response came off a bit strong.
Paul, I agree with you on almost every point... it's hard to say the labels are worthless, when they are the only descriptions we have. We just need to see that those descriptions are not taken verbatim, but as non-exclusive approximations. (Until we find a way to know, with certainty, otherwise, that's all they can be. I don't see that happening anytime soon.)
Karmen,
This article generated more responses than usual. That should tell us something right there, ey? Religion and politics; do they really fall into a particular category? I don't think so. They have moments of merging or criss-crossing with science...don't they? You have raised some interesting questions to ponder.
Chaotic Utopia is among the few blogs I read regularly here. In Karmen's writing and her choice of topics, I often see an attitude of respectful inquiry. In my experience, science benefits when its participants demonstrate respectful inquiry.
Yes, and I too read her blog often and enjoy it....but her posts are simply not science.